TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks again for the help.
I will be moving to Austin mid Feb. Need to pick up a good OC holster.

Believe it or not, still have yet to receive a call back or email from the state.

Javier730 wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Tx accepts Fl. CHLs. Why change?

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

Can you provide a citation for this in Federal Law (or preferably federal case law) that an in-state license is required? My understanding is a valid license is required, and Texas considers FL non-res valid (e.g. they have all the benefits of Texas LTC holders and are considered "licensed carriers" for every purpose by the State).

In other words, it's ANYONE with a license Texas recognizes because their out-of-state LTC makes them "licensed in the State of Texas," not just Texas resident licenses.

mreed911 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Tx accepts Fl. CHLs. Why change?

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

Can you provide a citation for this in Federal Law (or preferably federal case law) that an in-state license is required? My understanding is a valid license is required, and Texas considers FL non-res valid (e.g. they have all the benefits of Texas LTC holders and are considered "licensed carriers" for every purpose by the State).

In other words, it's ANYONE with a license Texas recognizes because their out-of-state LTC makes them "licensed in the State of Texas," not just Texas resident licenses.

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


I see what is written, but I also see what you mean... anyone know an case law on section (ii)?

Also, it seems that the constitutional carry states would be in violation.

mreed911 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Tx accepts Fl. CHLs. Why change?

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

Can you provide a citation for this in Federal Law (or preferably federal case law) that an in-state license is required? My understanding is a valid license is required, and Texas considers FL non-res valid (e.g. they have all the benefits of Texas LTC holders and are considered "licensed carriers" for every purpose by the State).

In other words, it's ANYONE with a license Texas recognizes because their out-of-state LTC makes them "licensed in the State of Texas," not just Texas resident licenses.

The ATF has interpreted the law to mean you must have an in-state license, you can see it in the FAQ on ATF web site. However, like you, I think their interpretation is wrong. But so far as I know there is no Federal case that has dealt with this subject.

AJSully421 wrote: I see what is written, but I also see what you mean... anyone know an case law on section (ii)?

Also, it seems that the constitutional carry states would be in violation.

Yep. Vermonters would be screwed, and that's obviously not happening.

ScottDLS wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:Tx accepts Fl. CHLs. Why change?

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

Can you provide a citation for this in Federal Law (or preferably federal case law) that an in-state license is required? My understanding is a valid license is required, and Texas considers FL non-res valid (e.g. they have all the benefits of Texas LTC holders and are considered "licensed carriers" for every purpose by the State).

In other words, it's ANYONE with a license Texas recognizes because their out-of-state LTC makes them "licensed in the State of Texas," not just Texas resident licenses.

The ATF has interpreted the law to mean you must have an in-state license, you can see it in the FAQ on ATF web site. However, like you, I think their interpretation is wrong. But so far as I know there is no Federal case that has dealt with this subject.

Just looked it up. US v. Tait... but it does not get into the weeds about the in-state license, mostly about the part saying a state must verify that a person is eligible. But it does affirm what you are saying about the ATF's current interpretation.

As mentioned, Tait doesn't relate to person with OOS license, as the Defendant had an Alabama license and crime was alleged in AL.

And the dismissal of charges against Tait was affirmed by the appellate court. They rejected the government argument that the AL license guidelines were too lax. They never addressed whether recognition of an OOS license by AL would be sufficient.

Going back to he whole "sealed" thing, in that law, it does not say the words "order of non-disclosure" but that order qualifies under that section as a conviction that has been "sealed, set aside, vacated..."

AJSully421 wrote:Going back to he whole "sealed" thing, in that law, it does not say the words "order of non-disclosure" but that order qualifies under that section as a conviction that has been "sealed, set aside, vacated..."

I've got an order of non disclosure. In the legal mumbo jumbo written in it, it mentions the records are to be sealed and not disclosed to any one other than the agencies mentioned.

Javier730 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Going back to he whole "sealed" thing, in that law, it does not say the words "order of non-disclosure" but that order qualifies under that section as a conviction that has been "sealed, set aside, vacated..."

I've got an order of non disclosure. In the legal mumbo jumbo written in it, it mentions the records are to be sealed and not disclosed to any one other than the agencies mentioned.

So, there you go. I had an acquaintance who had a burglary of a habitation DA (lifetime DQ under 411.1711) that was non-disclosed and he was able to get a CHL because of that.

OP, get after it.

AJSully421 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Going back to he whole "sealed" thing, in that law, it does not say the words "order of non-disclosure" but that order qualifies under that section as a conviction that has been "sealed, set aside, vacated..."

I've got an order of non disclosure. In the legal mumbo jumbo written in it, it mentions the records are to be sealed and not disclosed to any one other than the agencies mentioned.

So, there you go. I had an acquaintance who had a burglary of a habitation DA (lifetime DQ under 411.1711) that was non-disclosed and he was able to get a CHL because of that.

OP, get after it.

You should still mention it in the application though.